Talk:Hungary/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: 195.56.247.82 (talk · contribs) 12:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Hungary article improved significantly both in quantity (broad coverage) and quality in the last 1 year. Its nomination for GA is legitimate and supported.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article fully fits in with countries of similar, GA status.
 * I started adding tags on all the unsourced paragraphs, but gave up when I got to 10. This article currently fails criteria 2b. Also per Good article nominations/Instructions, only registered users are allowed to review GAs (as unregistered IPs are harder to contact and communicate with and may hop addresses at random, making them even more incognito). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article fully fits in with countries of similar, GA status.
 * I started adding tags on all the unsourced paragraphs, but gave up when I got to 10. This article currently fails criteria 2b. Also per Good article nominations/Instructions, only registered users are allowed to review GAs (as unregistered IPs are harder to contact and communicate with and may hop addresses at random, making them even more incognito). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article fully fits in with countries of similar, GA status.
 * I started adding tags on all the unsourced paragraphs, but gave up when I got to 10. This article currently fails criteria 2b. Also per Good article nominations/Instructions, only registered users are allowed to review GAs (as unregistered IPs are harder to contact and communicate with and may hop addresses at random, making them even more incognito). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)